Green Room

Re: Gallup’s abortion poll

posted at 3:36 pm on May 10, 2013 by

With much due respect to my friend Ed, I think his post about Gallup’s new poll on abortion and Gosnell buries the lede.  While Gallup’s data on the Gosnell trial and the media coverage thereof is certainly interesting, I was more struck by the attitudes it measured on the larger question of when abortion should be legal:

- A solid 58 percent majority of adults believes abortion should be legal (a) never, or (b) “only in a few” circumstances.   By contrast, just 39 percent hold the traditional “pro-choice” view that abortion should be legal in “all” or “most” cases.

- Among those selecting one of the two pro-life options (never or rarely legal) are 57 percent of women (!) and 57 percent of young people.

- Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to second (64 percent) and third (80 percent) trimester abortions.  Lila Rose, call your office.

Pro-lifers are regularly sneered at as “extremists” by people who support taxpayer-subsidized, purely elective, late-term abortion-on-demand.  Perhaps these statistics will give the sneerers pause, if only for a fleeting moment.  Opposing abortion in all or most cases isn’t merely mainstream, it’s a majority position.  Also, this question is often cast as a “women’s rights” issue.  It seems tens of millions of American women must have missed that memo, as did a majority of young voters, who are supposed to be charging to the left on all  “social issues.”

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I expect pro-life groups to run ads of the Gosnell trial in the coming months to compensate for the media embargo.

John the Libertarian on May 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Thanks for posting this, Guy.

I was looking for these specifics in Ed’s earlier post.

It’s kinda like that ’90% of Americans’ yada yada yada meme.

Again, thanks :)

jersey taxpayer on May 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I expect pro-life groups to run ads of the Gosnell trial in the coming months to compensate for the media embargo.

John the Libertarian on May 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Well, if they do, I would advise them to be very careful. The Gosnell trial dealt with really horrifying and shocking actions. Low-information voters may take a “blame the messenger” attitude and condemn the pro-life organizations for running commercials to tell them about the horrifying and shocking actions.

J.S.K. on May 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Well, if they do, I would advise them to be very careful. The Gosnell trial dealt with really horrifying and shocking actions. Low-information voters may take a “blame the messenger” attitude and condemn the pro-life organizations for running commercials to tell them about the horrifying and shocking actions.

J.S.K. on May 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Can we just call them what they really are?

“Low-information voters” = uninformed lazy dumbasses

gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:17 PM

I would advise them to be very careful.

J.S.K. on May 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I share your concern and cynicism, but if we are that far gone as a nation, then I don’t know what to think.

John the Libertarian on May 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

In the 2012 election, Romney had the option of responding to the Akin affair by pointing out the Gosnell is a creation of abortion extremists, like Obama.

He chose not to, because he is pro-abortion as well and could and would not fight back. And he paid the price.

Of course due to his incompetence and the State Media’s efforts we got to see a middle of the road Democrats, in Romney, portrayed as Attlia the Hun.

18-1 on May 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

And yet the lives of the unborn are held hostage by the minority. If you are in that minority, you will have to answer someday, change now and never look back…..quit believing the lies…

crosshugger on May 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I had the opportunity to be part of this poll. I was also asked some questions about the 0′s handling of the economy and foreign relations. I don’t see those numbers.

clnurnberg on May 10, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Is the Gosnell case still in front of the jury? I haven’t heard any news lately.

Ward Cleaver on May 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Well, if they do, I would advise them to be very careful. The Gosnell trial dealt with really horrifying and shocking actions. Low-information voters may take a “blame the messenger” attitude and condemn the pro-life organizations for running commercials to tell them about the horrifying and shocking actions.

J.S.K. on May 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I would change the target a little.

I would use the commercial to ask something about “did you hear the story about the doctor that killed babies by stabbing them in the back with scissors? …and flushing them down toilets? …or keeping feet in jars as trophies?”

If not, maybe you need to find an actual news channel that doesn’t try to manipulate you by hiding the truth from you…

dominigan on May 10, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Is the Gosnell case still in front of the jury? I haven’t heard any news lately.

Ward Cleaver on May 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Never mind, I just saw the story about the jury stopping for the weekend.

Ward Cleaver on May 10, 2013 at 5:29 PM

- Among those selecting one of the two pro-life options (never or rarely legal) are 57 percent of women (!) and 57 percent of young people.

Not really news.

Been trending that way for a couple years.

tetriskid on May 10, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Just looking at these numbers, I’d want to know age groups. I know when I went through public schools and ate up the drill that abortion was a “viable” method of birth control, It took me just as much time to undo the thought and realize it is the worst choice of all. 39% – what is the age group?

ericdijon on May 10, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I wonder what it means when 58% of people claim to oppose most abortions, but Richard Mourdock loses an election in Indiana over a pro-life statement that didn’t seem that extreme to me? This just doesn’t add up. The only thing I know for sure is that it’s because most people have incredibly finely nuanced views on this issue.

thuja on May 10, 2013 at 11:02 PM

When people start voting based on their supposed opposition to abortion, then it might mean something.

yhxqqsn on May 11, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Therefore the key to pro-life folks and the GOP is to aim at the low hanging fruit. In other words:

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to second (64 percent) and third (80 percent) trimester abortions.

Politics is the art of the possible. This is possible and can be done, but the GOP has to stay on message and it must avoid the Akin’s of this world who don’t stay on message because of a lack of common sense.

If the goal is to save life, than imagine how many lives would be saved by just banning those two horrific versions of abortions. Yes it is not a complete ban, but we are only humans and we can’t do all good things. Wars are not won with one battle, but a series of battles, and the pro-life side needs to learn to win a battle first before they can hope win numerous battles and win a war. They have to learn to use more than just religious scripture, but every possible tool that is available even if that means using Rowe vs. Wade to win this battle.

William Eaton on May 11, 2013 at 2:41 AM

Correction: Roe vs. Wade…

William Eaton on May 11, 2013 at 2:41 AM

In the 2012 election, Romney had the option of responding to the Akin affair by pointing out the Gosnell is a creation of abortion extremists, like Obama.

He chose not to, because he is pro-abortion as well and could and would not fight back. And he paid the price.

18-1 on May 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Not only that, his own sister was going around saying he wouldn’t overturn Roe, he said there wasn’t any abortion-related legislation he would pass (although he backtracked from that due to blowback), and he put up commercials like this (Romney ad begins about 18 seconds in) stressing all the exemptions from his supposedly pro-life position (but advertise why being pro-life is good to begin with? Never.)

Romney was just another Charlie Crist, saying anything people wanted to hear. I’m proud to have never voted for him.

Stoic Patriot on May 11, 2013 at 7:57 AM

I wonder what it means when 58% of people claim to oppose most abortions, but Richard Mourdock loses an election in Indiana over a pro-life statement that didn’t seem that extreme to me? This just doesn’t add up. The only thing I know for sure is that it’s because most people have incredibly finely nuanced views on this issue.

thuja on May 10, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Two possibilities: Either Mourdock didn’t lose the election because of that statement, or the people of Indiana thought it was more extreme than you did. I don’t understand how you “nuance” views on killing. Either it is or it isn’t.

gryphon202 on May 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM